![]() ![]() ![]() That the research was done for Cook himself, and his co-authors, and those who want to be assured that peer review is doing the job asked of it. Yes, this paper would help in the entrenchment, but they’d first have to hear about the paper, and none are likely to. climate change, isn’t going to move much from it, except possibly to become more entrenched. Not the politicians nor the civilians need this research because at this late date everybody who has an opinion on global warming, a.k.a. They won’t delve into the paper, tease out its weaknesses and figure how the results would be different if we phrased those certain propositions about global warming this way rather than that. They will be satisfied by politicians’ and propagandists’ summaries that “All scientists agree,” etc. What about politicians, or civilians? Scarcely any civilian will read the paper. It is they who set the Consensus.Ĭook does not speak to or write for them that is, these scientists didn’t need the message. They are, after all, the peers who do the peer reviewing. They already know that they are all on the same side. Most of the scientists know each other, or at least know of each other. The people publishing in the journals know the score. The entire purpose of Cook’s “research”, which to all appearances required much effort, was to prove that peer review works, that it’s doing its job, that the people who publish in the select journals he reviewed all (or almost all) agree on some narrow set of questions.īut why do the “research”? At first glance, it doesn’t seem it is needed. Since all these scientists speak as one, how dare we disagree? Experts are against us! Peer review, then, provides another form of the classic Appeal to Authority fallacy. They are true, to him and his co-authors, because Consensus. The second, and obvious, fallacy that follows is that Cook believes the Consensus proves the proposition, or rather many propositions, about global warming. Even dictators never announce a full 100% “voted” for them. Allowing that tiny fraction of dissent shows, in their minds, that the scientists’ choices are freely made. Claiming a constant solid never-varying 100% sounds, well, dogmatic. It’s a good strategy to allow a little bit of wiggle room in the stats. The only surprising thing is that Cook doesn’t claim it’s a full 100% who agree. The consensus is enforced by peers who naturally keep out those works that are considered wrong or are “controversial”. So those climate scientists who agree with the consensus held by the climate journals publish in the climate journals that agree with the consensus?Īnyway, that is peer review right there. The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. The opening sentence proves my contention that peer review enforces conformity: Paper’s title is “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming”, in Environmental Research Letters, by Experts John Cook, Naomi Oreskes and many others. Which is to say, by strangling new ideas. Today we examine a peer-reviewed paper whose very purpose is to show that peer review exists and is doing its job. We spoke the other day of the enervating effects of peer review. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |